Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?

<david.black@emc.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB9021F85CD for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:48:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.029
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.570, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6WlHB1qCFoP6 for <antitrust-policy@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B1921F859A for <antitrust-policy@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q0KNmNOI003006 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:48:23 -0500
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhub.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.130]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:48:07 -0500
Received: from mxhub33.corp.emc.com (mxhub33.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.81]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id q0KNm6wi001002; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:48:07 -0500
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.99]) by mxhub33.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:48:06 -0500
From: david.black@emc.com
To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:48:04 -0500
Thread-Topic: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
Thread-Index: AczXzG+kL6+Miv4nRGqw2raYNPtoUgAASBTA
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF1286@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
References: <20120110205143.6FDCF21F86F9@ietfa.amsl.com> <A44BB68F-19AB-462B-8A65-ACA855EA2ED1@vigilsec.com> <DE7B7ADC-F160-4633-8FD0-8453573D9830@vigilsec.com> <4F19DFCF.7090608@cs.tcd.ie> <CAP0PwYZDVF1oGdMikAkxNrx965+W-+uMS-0usRSX9sX8QMaiWg@mail.gmail.com> <4F19E563.8050506@cs.tcd.ie> <201201202218.q0KMII1j007473@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <4F19EB6B.2050301@cs.tcd.ie> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF1278@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <4F19F050.3040305@cs.tcd.ie> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF127D@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <4F19F445.7010600@cs.tcd.ie> <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E05A7CF1281@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <4F19FA8A.2030106@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4F19FA8A.2030106@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
X-BeenThere: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the need for an antitrust or competition policy for the IETF." <antitrust-policy.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy>
List-Post: <mailto:antitrust-policy@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy>, <mailto:antitrust-policy-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:48:30 -0000

> > I'll leave the INCITS version of John Levine's hypothetical cross-examination as an
> > exercise for the reader, aside from noting that it would diverge dramatically at the
> > very first answer.
>
> And therein lies the danger. If we were to try get into a position
> where the IETF says more than "not really" then we're probably heading
> towards paid membership. (More than "not really," implies that we
> can eject folks and their sock-puppets far more efficiently than now,
> which implies we know who everyone is and who they represent...)

What difference do you see between paid membership and paid meeting fees?

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:37 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
> 
> 
> 
> On 01/20/2012 11:26 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote:
> >>> An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not
> >>> only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective
> >>> operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have
> >>> (or should have) an interest in the latter.
> >>
> >> Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")?
> >
> > Yes - it's a good idea to spell out what not being bold means in somewhat more detail ;-).
> >
> > As I've noted earlier, here's an example of a somewhat more detailed standards organization
> > anti-trust policy (see the bulleted list of six Sensitive Topics):
> >
> > 	http://www.incits.org/inatrust.htm
> >
> > Notice of that policy is given as part of every INCITS standards meeting (it's part of
> > the INCITS functional equivalent of the NOTE WELL), and the policy is enforced.  While
> > it doesn't happen very often, I have seen the policyi enforced in practice.
> >
> > I'll leave the INCITS version of John Levine's hypothetical cross-examination as an
> > exercise for the reader, aside from noting that it would diverge dramatically at the
> > very first answer.
> 
> And therein lies the danger. If we were to try get into a position
> where the IETF says more than "not really" then we're probably heading
> towards paid membership. (More than "not really," implies that we
> can eject folks and their sock-puppets far more efficiently than now,
> which implies we know who everyone is and who they represent...)
> 
> If there's a way to usefully say "don't be bold about anti-trust" that
> doesn't sit at the top of that slippery slope then I'd be interested
> in seeing that.
> 
> S
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 6:10 PM
> >> To: Black, David
> >> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 01/20/2012 11:02 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote:
> >>>>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes.  I'll leave finding relevant
> >>>>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus
> >>>> were at the time.
> >>>>
> >>>> But my main point still applies, I believe.
> >>>
> >>> I appreciate that ... as to your main point:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
> >>>>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
> >>>>>>>> me.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm ... Russ's second paragraph was:
> >>>
> >>> 	Yet, it is worth reminding all IETF participants that all IETF meetings,
> >>> 	including virtual meetings, shall be conducted in compliance with all
> >>> 	applicable laws, including antitrust and competition laws.
> >>
> >> Right. "Don't be bold" is fine advice. But not really a policy.
> >> (I'd also be interested in the answer to John Levine's most
> >> recent question [1].)
> >>
> >>> An alternative to your view is that violation of such laws is detrimental not
> >>> only to those who may be responsible for the violations, but also to the effective
> >>> operation of the IETF as a whole, and I believe all IETF participants have
> >>> (or should have) an interest in the latter.
> >>
> >> Fair point. Does that need a policy (other than "Don't be bold")?
> >>
> >> S
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/antitrust-policy/current/msg00052.html
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> --David
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> >>>> Stephen Farrell
> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:53 PM
> >>>> To: Black, David
> >>>> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/20/2012 10:47 PM, david.black@emc.com wrote:
> >>>>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
> >>>>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
> >>>>>> example.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
> >>>>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Excuse me, but anti-trust law applies to companies of all sizes.  I'll leave finding relevant
> >>>>> case law examples to Jorge, aside from noting that Rambus may be one such example.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fair enough wrt company size. I've no idea how big Rambus
> >>>> were at the time.
> >>>>
> >>>> But my main point still applies, I believe.
> >>>>
> >>>> S
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
> >>>>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suggest this approach, particularly if the policy is not burdensome (e.g., a list of
> >>>>> topics that should not be discussed), as there are a significant number of IETF participants
> >>>>> whose organizations are concerned about anti-trust (e.g., employees of large companies),
> >>>>> and I would hope everyone would be interested in encouraging broad participation in the IETF.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> --David
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:antitrust-policy-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> >>>>>> Stephen Farrell
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:32 PM
> >>>>>> To: Thomas Narten
> >>>>>> Cc: antitrust-policy@ietf.org; Russ Housley; Jorge Contreras
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [antitrust-policy] how does that affect those with no competitive interests?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 01/20/2012 10:18 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> >>>>>>> Stephen Farrell<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>     writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> My point is that this policy assumes that all participants can
> >>>>>>>> in principle be anti-competition which seems like nonsense to
> >>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but engineers with no background
> >>>>>>> in anti-trust opining "much ado about nothing, I work for XYZ which
> >>>>>>> can't possibly cause an issue" makes a good argument for why we do
> >>>>>>> need a policy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the absence of any relevant anti-trust + SDO + non-large
> >>>>>> company example from anywhere in the world, I disagree.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll happily admit I'm wrong if someone has a relevant
> >>>>>> example.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Building a policy that includes non-large-company employees
> >>>>>> based on nothing concrete seems wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Building a policy that distinguishes between IETF participants
> >>>>>> based on the type of their employer seems wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The above two seem to be the choices here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     >    But it better be simple, clear and be understandable by
> >>>>>>> IETF participants. And maybe calling it a "policy" goes to far. What
> >>>>>>> we need is enough basic education about participant behavior to make
> >>>>>>> sure the IETF keeps out of trouble.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Much as we might like to ignore IPR, anti-trust, and other
> >>>>>>> non-engineering issues, we are potentially impacted by them, and the
> >>>>>>> IETF could (if it or its participants behave stupidly), could find
> >>>>>>> itself in a Heap of Pain.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But let's keep perspective here. Some simple guidelines, with an
> >>>>>>> understanding that if folk start going into dangerous territory that
> >>>>>>> needs to be stopped is probably about all we need.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I pretty much agree with the above. But I don't see what's required
> >>>>>> that's new compared to what we already have.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> S.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thomas
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
> >>>>>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
> >>>>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> antitrust-policy mailing list
> >>>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> antitrust-policy mailing list
> >>> antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
> >>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > antitrust-policy mailing list
> > antitrust-policy@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/antitrust-policy
> >